Declining moral values

[rightwinger]

We always yearn for the moral values of the past while decrying the lack of moral values today

If you go back 50 years, the moral values allowed

- Discriminating against blacks
- Discrimination against gays
- Tolerance of Domestic violence
- Blaming rape on the victim
- Child beating
- Open destruction of the environment

Sorry...I prefer today

Today:

- Discriminating against Christians
- Discrimination against Jews
- Tolerance of Domestic violence, still
- Blaming rape on the victim, still (especially if the rapist is 'somebody' in the liberal's book, Bill Clinton or Roman Polanski)
- Child extermination (abortion)
- Open destruction of human society

What a pathetic response. Did you actually think about what you were typing?

The truth is that the definition of morality has evolved. 50 years ago pre-marital sex, homosexuality and divorce were all considered immoral. However, segregating blacks from society, allowing any violence within the family to be ignored and beating gays was perfectly moral

 

[logical4u]

Now we have someone else who is lying.
I will give you a clue, IT IS NOT RAPE WHEN YOU SAY YES

And who is being immoral now? Pretty sure lying, and making things up as you go is immoral.

It is when someone is abusing a position of power to make you say yes.

I bet you would try to say the women Tiger Woods slept with were raped also.
And PS Clinton was cleared in the Paula Jones case.
So go spread your lies elsewhere.

Was that AFTER he committed perjury?

 

[Dr Gregg]

Now we have someone else who is lying.
I will give you a clue, IT IS NOT RAPE WHEN YOU SAY YES

And who is being immoral now? Pretty sure lying, and making things up as you go is immoral.

It is when someone is abusing a position of power to make you say yes.

I bet you would try to say the women Tiger Woods slept with were raped also.
And PS Clinton was cleared in the Paula Jones case.
So go spread your lies elsewhere.

Also, men who are really good looking, act all nice and charming, they must rape the woman also. \Using that logic get laid=rape I supposed

 

[Kalam]

Today:

- Discriminating against Christians
- Discrimination against Jews

 

[logical4u]

Sure is homophobia in here.

Answer the question.

I already did, for him.

I will do it again:
care for other humans
care for animals
faithful to their partners
do not judge others
have faith in God
don't do drugs
donate to charity
raise their children in a safe, MORAL envirnment

Did you just make this up???

Were is this written, what homosexual 'community' posts this as their 'moral compass'?

 

[midcan5]

...You can still find survirors of 'socialist' based societies that failed or are failing and the 'horrors' of what was done to the citizens (or people within the national boundaries) in those lands, that are far more 'evil' than what was done over the period with Christian 'power hungry religious leaders'...

Name one [I am assuming you mean a dictatorial one] nation that was genuinely socialist?

If America were not so plutocratic we would be a minor socialist nation, considering we own stocks, have SS, the military, post office, etc etc. European nations today lean socialist too, and are nice places. Been there, done that. And if you read a history of religion in the middle ages you may just learn a bit.

check this out: [ame=http://www.amazon.com/World-Lit-Only-Fire-Renaissance/dp/0316545562/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: A World Lit Only by Fire: The Medieval Mind and the Renaissance: Portrait of an Age (9780316545563): William…[/ame]

 

[Luissa]

It is when someone is abusing a position of power to make you say yes.

I bet you would try to say the women Tiger Woods slept with were raped also.
And PS Clinton was cleared in the Paula Jones case.
So go spread your lies elsewhere.

Was that AFTER he committed perjury?

Are we talking about that? Way to deflect.

He lied! And no one should say someone raped another person, when it has been proven they have not. Plus Paula Jones made out like a bandit. So who really took advantage of the situation? She got a promotion, and once she decided to sue after getting the promotion, she got a new wardwrobe, and new nose. Plus who knows how much money from media deals.
I am sorry I don't feel bad for someone who SAI D YES, and life was improved by the deal.

 

[Luissa]

Answer the question.

I already did, for him.

I will do it again:
care for other humans
care for animals
faithful to their partners
do not judge others
have faith in God
don't do drugs
donate to charity
raise their children in a safe, MORAL envirnment

Did you just make this up???

Were is this written, what homosexual 'community' posts this as their 'moral compass'?

No, I have many gay friends.

One works with cancer patients, and has donated his time and money to charities helping out humans and animals. He is dating my friend who is faithful too. They both don't judge people, and are very loving.
My other friend is a christian and has been sober for three years, he also runs marathons, and works at a drug rehab. He also runs in the MSWalk every year, raising money for MS. He is also faithful to his partner.
My friends mother and her partner raised him in a safe moral christian envirnment, and he is now a father of two, has a good job, and raises his children in a christian envirnment.



So by your stupid statement, Dogbert had every right to call you a homophobe.

 

[logical4u]

...You can still find survirors of 'socialist' based societies that failed or are failing and the 'horrors' of what was done to the citizens (or people within the national boundaries) in those lands, that are far more 'evil' than what was done over the period with Christian 'power hungry religious leaders'...

Name one [I am assuming you mean a dictatorial one] nation that was genuinely socialist?

If America were not so plutocratic we would be a minor socialist nation, considering we own stocks, have SS, the military, post office, etc etc. European nations today lean socialist too, and are nice places. Been there, done that. And if you read a history of religion in the middle ages you may just learn a bit.

check this out: [ame=http://www.amazon.com/World-Lit-Only-Fire-Renaissance/dp/0316545562/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: A World Lit Only by Fire: The Medieval Mind and the Renaissance: Portrait of an Age (9780316545563): William…[/ame]

Eastern European countries under the communist (socialists): Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, Estonia, etc, Cambodia, China, North Korea, Vietnam are all countries were a 'socialist' type of gov was promised, and implemented, but not delivered (once the people were controlled, the gov had absolute power and used it). Currently: Zimbabwe, Venuzuela, cuba and others, are in the process (or are already there) of 'socialist style' promised gov subjecting the peoples to the leaders' whims and absolute authority.

If you have never talked with someone that lived thru one of these 'takeovers', you might want to, before you consider welcoming it here. There are also several books out from survivors.

 

[logical4u]

I already did, for him.

I will do it again:
care for other humans
care for animals
faithful to their partners
do not judge others
have faith in God
don't do drugs
donate to charity
raise their children in a safe, MORAL envirnment

Did you just make this up???

Were is this written, what homosexual 'community' posts this as their 'moral compass'?

No, I have many gay friends.

One works with cancer patients, and has donated his time and money to charities helping out humans and animals. He is dating my friend who is faithful too. They both don't judge people, and are very loving.
My other friend is a christian and has been sober for three years, he also runs marathons, and works at a drug rehab. He also runs in the MSWalk every year, raising money for MS. He is also faithful to his partner.
My friends mother and her partner raised him in a safe moral christian envirnment, and he is now a father of two, has a good job, and raises his children in a christian envirnment.



So by your stupid statement, Dogbert had every right to call you a homophobe.

I knew a drunk that would ram people from behind when he was drinking. When he was sober, he was REALLY a nice guy. He helped people. He cared about children. He did great work. He was faithful to his partner. He would give his shirt off of his back when he wanted to.... does that make him a moral guy?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

The issue here is that there are two variables: the changing definition of "moral" and the changing actions of that definition.

It is better however to view ETHICS, not morals, as an indicator of society. Ethical principles tend to be free from religious bias and focused more on humanism and equality. It is clear that ethical standards have strongly increased even in the last few decades. Science and medicine is much more strongly scrutinized, as it never was previously, to ensure no one is abused by progress or experimentation.

So what is "moral" then if not humanism and equality? Well, it's the little crap that irrational people believe in as good or bad. In general, immoral things are those which they don't do. It's not that most people live based on how they define their morals. It's that their morals are defined on how they live.

Take the guy in the abortion thread who made up his own definition of pregnancy to convince himself that he's not engaging in abortion. How about every Catholic who has engaged in pre-marital sex? People who speak on "morals" instead of ethics simply define their morals by the things they don't do and don't like to think about others doing.

 

[logical4u]

...You can still find survirors of 'socialist' based societies that failed or are failing and the 'horrors' of what was done to the citizens (or people within the national boundaries) in those lands, that are far more 'evil' than what was done over the period with Christian 'power hungry religious leaders'...

Name one [I am assuming you mean a dictatorial one] nation that was genuinely socialist?

If America were not so plutocratic we would be a minor socialist nation, considering we own stocks, have SS, the military, post office, etc etc. European nations today lean socialist too, and are nice places. Been there, done that. And if you read a history of religion in the middle ages you may just learn a bit.

check this out: [ame=http://www.amazon.com/World-Lit-Only-Fire-Renaissance/dp/0316545562/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: A World Lit Only by Fire: The Medieval Mind and the Renaissance: Portrait of an Age (9780316545563): William…[/ame]

The point I was trying to make: replace the religious leaders of the past (that people say they never want to see again) and replace them with the liberal leaders of today (that have not gained the power the church had....yet). You will see the same methods: "it is for the good of mankind, the children, etc, etc, etc. Once the "people" give them 'absolute' power, there will be similar (or according to history), or worse results.

Discrimmination will be based on the gov's opinion of who is useful to society, who can produce, who can labor, who can be used for their intelligence. There will be no 'individualism', it will be for the benefit of the 'people' (the leader(s)). Distrust anyone that says: you must give up this to benefit _____. If they were sincere, they would ask: how can these people have ______ (most don't want to hear that answer: hard work, duh?).

 

[Foxfyre]

The issue here is that there are two variables: the changing definition of "moral" and the changing actions of that definition.

It is better however to view ETHICS, not morals, as an indicator of society. Ethical principles tend to be free from religious bias and focused more on humanism and equality. It is clear that ethical standards have strongly increased even in the last few decades. Science and medicine is much more strongly scrutinized, as it never was previously, to ensure no one is abused by progress or experimentation.

So what is "moral" then if not humanism and equality? Well, it's the little crap that irrational people believe in as good or bad. In general, immoral things are those which they don't do. It's not that most people live based on how they define their morals. It's that their morals are defined on how they live.

Take the guy in the abortion thread who made up his own definition of pregnancy to convince himself that he's not engaging in abortion. How about every Catholic who has engaged in pre-marital sex? People who speak on "morals" instead of ethics simply define their morals by the things they don't do and don't like to think about others doing.

Hi STH. Hope you're finding a happy home here at USMB.

I understand where you're going with this, but I get stuck in the mechanics of the thought.

How do we know what is 'ethical' without moral values being a factor in that?

And for most of us, especially here in America, where did we get our moral values other than from our religious heritage?

 

[Si modo]

OMG.

How about just reading the OP, for starters.

Trolls don't bother reading threads before knee-jerk reacting in them.

As I said, you're being the good little troll you usually are.

I read the OP. I have to say though, you should get a new word in your vocab. Otherwise, the word troll is going to become meaningless considering how much you overuse it.

Either you're lying about reading the OP, or you were lying when you said you don't know what my reference to the Gallup poll was.

Liar.

Troll.

As usual.

 

[uscitizen]

And for most of us, especially here in America, where did we get our moral values other than from our religious heritage?


Television.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Hi STH. Hope you're finding a happy home here at USMB.

I understand where you're going with this, but I get stuck in the mechanics of the thought.

How do we know what is 'ethical' without moral values being a factor in that?

And for most of us, especially here in America, where did we get our moral values other than from our religious heritage?

hello there. First question: toss morals aside. Let's start with a blank slate. Medical and scientific ethics are based around these principles:
beneficence: benefiting others
nonmaleficence: not harming others
autonomy: allowing people to make decisions for themselves
justice: you know this one
In general, ethics speaks to equality, the removal of double-standards, and not taking advantage of others. This last point could be in regards to brute force or scare tactics, or it could be through offering large amounts of money to overcome people's natural autonomy. It can also come in the form of misleading or wrongfully influencing others. This is why researchers need to disclose sources of income: to show people they are not being wrongly influenced, and can report in an unbiased manner.

So now let's add "morals" back in. What constitutes morals exactly? View on sexuality, gender, or contraception? Views on atonement, or keeping the Sabbath, or prayer? What do these things have to do with equality? Humanism? Justice?

As for your second question, I can only ask why "moral values" or "spiritual values" are needed at all in society? Why not ethical values only? I'm not saying you should scrap your religious beliefs, which are so strongly based on morals, but if ETHICAL values are the best type of values for society, why do moral values influence politics and policy so often? Family values are best kept in the family. Whose family? Your own. None are needed outside of that, though the fundamentals of ethical values should be known by all.

Let me ask you this: is it better to understand and internalize the reasons behind a rule, or to have the rule forced upon you without question? In this regard, how do you think moral vs ethical values tend to operate?

 

[geauxtohell]

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans are three times more likely to describe the current state of moral values in the United States as "poor" than as "excellent" or "good." Americans' assessment of U.S. morality has never been positive, but the current ratings rank among the worst Gallup has measured over the past nine years.

Additionally, Gallup's annual poll on moral values, conducted May 3-6, finds 76% of Americans saying moral values in the United States are getting worse; while 14% say they are getting better. Last year saw a slight improvement in these attitudes -- with 21% saying values were getting better -- but opinion has since reverted to near 2006-2008 levels.

Teen pregnancy may be #19 on the list - but I believe it is a significant factor in at least half of all the others.

What say you?

I credit great Americans like Hugh Hefner who was responsible for giving us great art (like the kind you have in your avatar) for helping America to remove the collective pole up its ass.

 

[Foxfyre]

Hi STH. Hope you're finding a happy home here at USMB.

I understand where you're going with this, but I get stuck in the mechanics of the thought.

How do we know what is 'ethical' without moral values being a factor in that?

And for most of us, especially here in America, where did we get our moral values other than from our religious heritage?

hello there. First question: toss morals aside. Let's start with a blank slate. Medical and scientific ethics are based around these principles:
beneficence: benefiting others
nonmaleficence: not harming others
autonomy: allowing people to make decisions for themselves
justice: you know this one
In general, ethics speaks to equality, the removal of double-standards, and not taking advantage of others. This last point could be in regards to brute force or scare tactics, or it could be through offering large amounts of money to overcome people's natural autonomy. It can also come in the form of misleading or wrongfully influencing others. This is why researchers need to disclose sources of income: to show people they are not being wrongly influenced, and can report in an unbiased manner.

So now let's add "morals" back in. What constitutes morals exactly? View on sexuality, gender, or contraception? Views on atonement, or keeping the Sabbath, or prayer? What do these things have to do with equality? Humanism? Justice?

As for your second question, I can only ask why "moral values" or "spiritual values" are needed at all in society? Why not ethical values only? I'm not saying you should scrap your religious beliefs, which are so strongly based on morals, but if ETHICAL values are the best type of values for society, why do moral values influence politics and policy so often? Family values are best kept in the family. Whose family? Your own. None are needed outside of that, though the fundamentals of ethical values should be known by all.

Let me ask you this: is it better to understand and internalize the reasons behind a rule, or to have the rule forced upon you without question? In this regard, how do you think moral vs ethical values tend to operate?

Let's just take one of the several ideas you have put here.

Why is it ethical to benefit others or not harm others? Why is that considered an ethical standard in our culture when it is not the ethical standard in others?

So where does not sense of duty to benefit others come from?
Where does a conviction to not harm others arise?
Who decided?
Who decides?
Why?

 

[chanel]

Coveting your neighbor's goods is only a sin when it becomes an overwhelming sense of entitlement to other people's property. Socialists absolutely hate that one.

I recall the commandment being "Thou Shall Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Goods."

I don't remember the 2nd half that you seem to have added in.

Yes I added that in.

THE TENTH COMMANDMENT

You shall not covet . . . anything that is your neighbor's. . . . You shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's.317

For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.318

2534 The tenth commandment unfolds and completes the ninth, which is concerned with concupiscence of the flesh. It forbids coveting the goods of another, as the root of theft, robbery, and fraud, which the seventh commandment forbids

2537 It is not a violation of this commandment to desire to obtain things that belong to one's neighbor, provided this is done by just means

Catechism of the Catholic Church - The tenth commandment

"Coveting" is not a violation. Desire to steal is. Socialists hate that one.

 

[Si modo]

Coveting your neighbor's goods is only a sin when it becomes an overwhelming sense of entitlement to other people's property. Socialists absolutely hate that one.

I recall the commandment being "Thou Shall Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Goods."

I don't remember the 2nd half that you seem to have added in.

Yes I added that in.

THE TENTH COMMANDMENT

You shall not covet . . . anything that is your neighbor's. . . . You shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's.317

For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.318

2534 The tenth commandment unfolds and completes the ninth, which is concerned with concupiscence of the flesh. It forbids coveting the goods of another, as the root of theft, robbery, and fraud, which the seventh commandment forbids

2537 It is not a violation of this commandment to desire to obtain things that belong to one's neighbor, provided this is done by just means

Catechism of the Catholic Church - The tenth commandment

"Coveting" is not a violation. Desire to steal is. Socialists hate that one.